A difficult choice: photogenic cliffs

Last Sunday I saw that Monday had a good weather forecast for the north of England, so I headed south to try again to capture the cliffs near Robin Hood's Bay. My previous visit was blighted by sea fog so thick that I couldn't even see the water, so I never got the camera out.

I knew I'd need an early start to hike there, carrying Lumix G1 camera, several lenses and tripod. I woke about 4.15, just before the alarm went off, and crept out quietly from my B&B. Fortunately the weather held, but I had to work fast, with the tide ebbing and the light waxing less magical by the minute.

Obviously I tried various locations and angles, and I've just been reviewing them all for possible use as a book cover. I think my best two efforts, taken within a few minutes and yards of each other, were among the very first. But which will make a better front cover? The first perhaps shows the cliffs better, the second has a strong concave feature (a cove or "hole"). Please comment on which one you'd be more likely to pick up in a bookshop or click if seen online. It would really help me to hear from you. The choice was made vastly more difficult by the first two people I asked each decisively jumping a different way. So I'm hoping that if anybody out there is reading this, they'll say which they prefer and why.

If you want to see why I needed to get up so early, compare these with one taken under 90 minutes later. The combined effects of the falling tide and the very ordinary lighting to me undermine its impact:

I prefer the first shot. It seems to have more sense of depth, and conveys the indented shoreline better. In the second shot, the cove dominates, and seems to detract from the overall impact of the cliffs. The later version of the one I like, with rocks exposed, makes an interesting contrast: what a difference 90 minutes made!

There's not much in it, but I prefer the second photo. I like the strong focal-point ie. the cove and the horizontal "layers" of geology. It has more drama. Also the perspective is less compressed than the first.